We have a problem with manufacturing in this country. We haven’t seen real leadership from Washington for years on either side of the aisle, and the numbers that lie ahead are pretty daunting. And that’s not just from the perspective of losing jobs. The Manufacturing Institute says that of the companies they survey, on median, 5% of their manufacturing jobs remain unfulfilled. Why? The answer won’t surprise you if you’ve been watching the news over the past year or so: There simply aren’t enough skilled workers to fill the positions. That seems incredible in a country like ours—one that most think of as highly educated and one that is facing continued high unemployment.
If you take those Manufacturing Institute numbers and expand them into real numbers, we’re looking at something like 600,000 jobs unfilled. The organization reports that the areas most need of help in the coming years (as even more skilled people retire) are machinists, operators, craft workers, distributors and technicians.
So what to do about this problem? The Brookings Institution has come out with a forward thinking, rational plan that should be studied and at least considered by our leaders. Brookings is calling for the creation of approximately 20 “U.S. Manufacturing Universities.” The study’s authors, Robert D. Atkinson and Stephen Ezell, explain that this designation for existing colleges wouldn’t be all that different from the Morrill Act in the 1800s, which established land-grant colleges to promote learning in agricultural and mechanical industries.
Why this tactic? The 20 Universities, through NSF grants, would be required to retool their current engineering programs to focus on the needs and challenges of manufacturing, with an emphasis on work that is relevant to industry today. The government support from the NSF would amount to at least $25 million per year per university. Not chump change, for sure, at a total of half a billion dollars. But to remain competitive as a manufacturing country, we will have to spend on R&D, just as Germany has done so successfully with its Fraunhofer System.
I asked Dr. Atkinson what factors or entities would have to come together in order to make this type of legislation a reality.
“Well, for one, Universities and Professional Societies would need to put their shoulder to the wheel on it,” said Atkinson. “It would also be nice if a few engineering-based companies did so as well.”
Atkinson told me that he thinks that the chances of the concept being adopted are low, because Washington shows little proclivity for policy innovation these days, especially when it costs money. That’s not to say it’s impossible. Such a system might start showing real results in as little as four years, according to Atkinson.
To read the whole report, click here. Want to get involved? Engage with your professional engineering society and encourage them to lobby for this idea on Capitol Hill.
Gus S. Calabrese (@99guspuppet) says
Hello Paul
I put some remarks at
http://erasmus-zarathustra.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-fix-us-manufacturing-big-picture.html
To summarize my thoughts…
#1 Government programs have a high failure rate… often the only winners are the friends of the politicians…
#2 Academics are a major source for great ideas. They often suffer from the myopia of having a safe job….. no *skin in the game* so to speak….
#3 Why focus on U.S. manufacturing ? We are now a world economy and should look at what is best for all of humanity… the greatest good for the greatest number. This is not at odds with making people in the U.S. successful. Not in the long term anyway.
#4 Please consider directing your readers to look at privately funded efforts such as Singularity University or Khan Academy.
Vince says
I recently read your insights article on “Looking down the road at manufacturing”. This is a complicated subject and I am sure I do not see all the aspects of this issue. But I have been on both sides of this dilema. I have been a hiring manager, and I am now a skilled professional looking for work. I understand there are over 600,000 jobs unfilled, and I understand that there are probably in excess of 3,600,000 people who would like to fill those jobs. I see two very different problems. First of all, from a process perspective manufacturers are defining their job openings so tightly that the computers are screening out applicants who can do the work and do it with excellence. Their resumes just do not contain all of the “key words” being sought by the manufacturer. Secondly, I don’t think we lack skills to fill those jobs, I think manufacturers lack the will to train on the job and would prefer to hold a job open for 6 months in the hope of getting the perfectly matched candidate rather than spend two months or less training someone on the job.
I also think that the company can do a more efficient, and less costly job of training the new hire on the skills that are indeed lacking, than the government can do and in less time.
Before I had computers screening resumes for me, I had to read through a stack of resumes and look for the hidden skills, talents, and experience that was present in a candidate. I also learned that the soft skills of character, communication, and team player skills of the candidate were more important than the technical skills which could be trained, or improved upon.